Reasoning steps: Eucharist: presence

Verdicts: S4 · Eucharist: presence. Shared notes and post-750 development: eucharist.

S04.1 (was eucharist/E1): Real presence

Step S04.1.1: Scripture

Matt 26:26–28; 1 Cor 10:16 (κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος … τοῦ σώματος); 11:27–29 (guilty of the body and blood; “not discerning the body”); John 6:51–58 (τρώγων, v. 54). Note 1 Cor 11:27: guilt against the body itself for unworthy eating.

Step S04.1.2: Patristic evidence

ignatius-euc-s1, justin-martyr-euc-s1, irenaeus-euc-s2, cyril-of-jerusalem-euc-s1, ambrose-euc-s1, john-of-damascus-euc-s1; sign language: tertullian-euc-s1, augustine-euc-s1, augustine-euc-s2, theodoret-euc-s1.

Step S04.1.3: Weighing decision

Reading A: the fathers hold a real, objective presence of Christ’s body and blood. Reading B: they hold a symbolic or memorial view. Reading C: a spiritual-only presence received by faith. A is chosen. Ignatius, Justin, Irenaeus, Cyril, Ambrose and John of Damascus state it directly. Irenaeus’s argument for the resurrection only works if the presence is real. The ‘figure’ and ‘sacrament’ texts (Tertullian, Augustine, Theodoret) do not deny presence: Tertullian uses figura to prove Christ’s body is real, and Theodoret says the elements are “worshipped”. B is rejected because no verified father calls the elements mere symbols. C (Presbyterian) can claim Augustine’s sign–virtue distinction ({s(‘augustine’,1)}), but not the realist texts.

• Confidence: High

Step S04.1.4: Source-proximity weighing

See the proximity tiers.

• Scripture (benchmark): ‘This is my body’; 1 Cor 10:16 (κοινωνία); 11:27–29 (guilty of the body). A realist reading is the more natural one; a metaphorical reading is possible but strained by 11:27. (Scripture confidence: medium-high)
• Key sources by tier: Ignatius (T1, w 1.0); Justin Martyr (T2, w 0.8); Irenaeus (T2, w 0.8); Theodoret (T3, w 0.6). Proximity factor: 0.8 (mean tier weight of 4 key source(s)).
• Assessment: The strongest early support of any question: Ignatius (T1) and Justin (T2), with a realist reading of 1 Cor 10–11. Verdict unchanged.

S04.2 (was eucharist/E3): Manner of change

Step S04.2.1: Scripture

Not addressed directly in Scripture.

Step S04.2.2: Patristic evidence

ambrose-euc-s1 (“nature itself is changed”), john-of-damascus-euc-s1 (changed; manner unsearchable), theodoret-euc-s1 (elements keep their nature).

Step S04.2.3: Weighing decision

Reading A: transubstantiation in its scholastic sense. Reading B: a real change, with the mode undefined. Reading C: a union with no change (consubstantiation). B is chosen. Ambrose and John of Damascus teach a change, and Theodoret insists the nature remains. No father uses the substance/accidents analysis, which is later (Lateran IV, 1215; Aquinas). C is not explicit in any verified father.

• Confidence: High (B)

Step S04.2.4: Source-proximity weighing

See the proximity tiers.

• Scripture (benchmark): Not scored against Scripture: Not addressed by Scripture.
• Key sources by tier: Ambrose (T3, w 0.6); John of Damascus (T4, w 0.4). Proximity factor: 0.5 (mean tier weight of 2 key source(s)).
• Assessment: The mode of the change is not a Scripture question. The sources are T3–T4. Transubstantiation as a metaphysical account lacks early support. Verdict unchanged.